Coleman v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
Filing
39
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/3/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2017)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
DWIGHT A. COLEMAN,
Case No. 14-cv-05508-YGR (PR)
Plaintiff,
5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
v.
6
7
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants.
8
9
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donavan Correctional Facility,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the conditions of his
12
confinement while he was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) from 2012 through
13
2014.
14
In an Order dated January 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the original complaint, finding
15
that Plaintiff had failed to link certain Defendants—prison officials at SVSP and Pleasant Valley
16
State Prison (“PVSP”)—adequately to his identifiable injuries. Dkt. 7. The Court also found that
17
many of Plaintiff’s claims appeared to be unrelated, unexhausted, and improperly joined
18
Defendants under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20(a).1 Id. at 6. The Court also
19
dismissed with leave to amend Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant California Department of
20
Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jeffrey Beard because Plaintiff had failed to link this
21
particular defendant to his claims of constitutional violations at SVSP or to allege supervisory
22
liability properly. Id. at 8.
23
24
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, based on alleged injuries caused by
twenty-five SVSP defendants between 2012 and 2014. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff claimed that the named
25
26
27
28
1
The Court dismissed the improperly joined PVSP defendants and the claims against them
(that took place from December 2010 through April 2012). Dkt. 7 at 3-4. The dismissal was
without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing separate actions asserting those claims in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, which is the proper venue for claims based on
acts and omissions at PVSP. Id. at 4.
1
Defendants:
engaged upon a pattern of behaviors and acts of discrimination that
resulted in physical injury to Plaintiff, as well as acts of assault,
intimidation, and deprivation of basic life needs. The above
included but was not limited to the disruption and intercepting of my
United States Postal Mail product, Inmate Appeals, and denial of
due process. Numerous instances of Civil Rights Violations include
[violations of] the 1st, 8th and 14th Amendments.
2
3
4
5
Id. at 3.2 In its January 12, 2016 Order reviewing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court stated
6
as follows:
7
Plaintiff claims that he “came to SVSP using a wheelchair” in April
2012. Id. at 8, 21. He proceeds to recount more specific complaints
regarding, for example: grievances regarding his Americans With
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) evaluation in October 2012 (id. at 8);
failure to respond to his complaints of “cardiac distress[s]” on April
14, 2013 (id.); threats to his safety on August 20, 2013 (id. at 9);
placement in a cell without “ADA handrails” in September 2013 as
well as deliberate indifference to health and safety needs resulting
from such a placement (id. at 10-11); falsification of a Rules
Violation Report (“RVR”) dated January 1, 2014 (id. at 11);
excessive force on March 9, 2014 (id. at 11-12); deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs from April 2012 through
April 2013 and resulting supervisory liability claims (id. at 12-13);
failure to respond to his medical needs on March 1, 2013 (id. at 1314); denial to due process rights stemming from the handling of
RVR no. A14-01-003 in 2014 (id. at 14), inmate appeal log no.
SVSP-13-02052 in 2013 (id. at 15), and inmate appeal log no.
SVSP-14-00966 in 2014 (id. at 15-16); failure to process mail and
inmate appeals (id. at 16); and, finally, multiple supervisory liability
claims (id. at 16-18). These various grievances cannot serve the
basis of one complaint in federal court.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Dkt. 18 at 3. The Court pointed out that he again alleged multiple sets of claims against SVSP
19
defendants for events that transpired when Plaintiff was incarcerated there between 2012 and
20
2014. Dkt. 18 at 3. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
21
(“SAC”), stating as follows:
22
Plaintiff is hereby granted one more opportunity to amend his
complaint to state cognizable claims for relief concerning the events
that transpired when he was incarcerated at SVSP. In his Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is again reminded that he may only
allege claims that (a) arise out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and
(b) present questions of law or fact common to all defendants
named therein. Plaintiff must choose what claims he wants to
23
24
25
26
27
2
28
Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management
filing system and not those assigned by Plaintiff.
2
pursue that meet the joinder requirements. Plaintiff must also follow
the original requirements for amending his complaint outlined in the
Court’s January 29, 2015 Order . . . .
1
2
Dkt. 18 at 3-4 (emphasis in original).
3
After being granted numerous extensions of time to do so, Plaintiff subsequently filed his
4
SAC, in which he again sought monetary damages and injunctive relief based on alleged injuries
5
caused by SVSP defendants between 2012 and 2014. Dkt. 32. In an Order dated April 5, 2017,
6
the Court reviewed the SAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that many of
7
Plaintiff’s claims in his SAC again appeared to be unrelated. Dkt. 36 at 3. Thus, the Court found
8
that the SAC was still deficient, stating as follows:
9
The SAC alleges several claims that are not properly joined under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims
and defendants. Rule 20(a) provides that all persons “may be joined
in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact
common to all defendants will arise in the action.” As outlined
above, Plaintiff’s claims cover a broad array of different incidents
by different individuals at SVSP over the course of approximately
two years. Dkt. 32 at 6-17. As the Court has instructed Plaintiff in
past orders, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences and (b) present questions of law or fact common to
all defendants named therein. Plaintiff may not include in a single
complaint everything that has happened to him over a two-year
period that he finds objectionable. He must choose what claims he
wants to pursue that meet the joinder requirements. See George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (finding, under Rule 18(a),
prisoner improperly brought complaint raising fifty distinct claims
against twenty-four defendants). As a practical matter, this means
that claims involving different parties cannot be joined together in
one complaint if the facts giving rise to the claims are not factually
related in some way—that is, if there is not “similarity in the factual
background.” Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir.
1997). General allegations are not sufficient to constitute similarity
when the specifics are different. Id.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dkt. 36 at 3-4 (footnote omitted and emphasis in original). Thus, the Court dismissed the SAC
24
with leave to amend within twenty-eight days, with instructions to Plaintiff that he must file a
25
Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a),
26
stating:
27
28
Plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to amend his complaint to
state cognizable claims for relief concerning the events that
transpired when he was incarcerated at the SVSP. Plaintiff must
3
choose what claims he wants to pursue that meet the joinder
requirements. Plaintiff must also follow the original requirements
for amending his complaint outlined in the Court’s January 29, 2015
Order . . . .
1
2
3
Dkt. 36 at 4 (italics in original). The Court also warned as follows: “If Plaintiff fails to timely
4
file a Third Amended Complaint in conformity with this Order, this case will be dismissed
5
without prejudice and will be closed.” Id. at 6 (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has since filed his TAC. Dkt. 38. The Court now reviews Plaintiff’s TAC and,
6
7
8
9
for the reasons described below, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
12
§ 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
13
of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
14
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
15
relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
16
Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
17
B.
18
In reviewing Plaintiff’s original complaint two years ago, the Court explained that it
19
suffered from the defect of setting forth many unrelated claims against many defendants, stating as
20
follows:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Legal Claims
. . . Plaintiff’s complaint is twenty-five pages long. It contains
multiple legal claims and names twenty-four SVSP defendants. The
complaint is extraordinary broad, and appears to touch upon
everything Plaintiff found objectionable during his incarceration at
SVSP between April 2012 through March 2014.
As the Court has already determined . . . the complaint
alleges several claims against SVSP defendants and PVSP
defendants that are not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims and defendants.
However, even the claims against the twenty-four SVSP defendants
cover a broad array of different incidents by different individuals
over the course of approximately two years. In his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
4
1
2
3
4
occurrences and (b) present questions of law or fact common to all
defendants named therein. Plaintiff may not include in a single
complaint everything that has happened to him over a two-year
period that he finds objectionable. He must choose what claims he
wants to pursue that meet the joinder requirements; if he asserts
improperly joined claims in his Amended Complaint, they will be
dismissed.
Dkt. 7 at 6. As noted above, upon reviewing both his Amended Complaint and SAC, the Court
5
instructed Plaintiff that they still suffered from the same defect of setting forth many unrelated
6
claims against many defendants. Dkt. 18 at 3; Dkt. 36 at 3.
7
Similarly, Plaintiff’s TAC is forty-one pages long, and it fails to provide information
8
regarding why his claims and the named Defendants are properly joined. See Dkt. 38 at 3-36. As
9
the Court has previously notified Plaintiff in numerous previous orders, Federal Rule of Civil
10
Procedure Rule 20 provides as follows:
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Multiple parties may be joined as defendants in one action only “if
any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.” [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 20(a)(2). The upshot of these rules is that
“multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against
Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against
Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different
suits.” Ibid.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) (emphasis added).
18
Here, as noted, Plaintiff has filed a total of three previous complaints: his original
19
complaint; Amended Complaint; and SAC. His original complaint was dismissed with leave to
20
amend to link Defendants. His Amended Complaint and SAC were carefully reviewed by the
21
Court, and the Court determined that they both suffered from the defect of setting forth many
22
unrelated claims against many defendants. The claims included wide-ranging allegations of civil
23
rights violations which took place at different times by different Defendants.
24
Upon reviewing the TAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff has once again filed a complaint
25
involving many unrelated claims and Defendants. The claims in the TAC are, again, wide-ranging
26
and include alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights at SVSP. Plaintiff has included many disparate
27
claims arising out of distinct events at the prison from October 2012 through March 2014,
28
5
1
including that Defendants were: deliberately indifferent to his medical needs on March 1, 2013
2
and April 14, 2013; unlawfully subjected him to a strip search on August 20, 2013; unlawfully
3
moved him out of an ADA designated cell in September 2013; denied him inmate witnesses at a
4
disciplinary hearing in January 2014; and assaulted him as well as wrongfully took items from his
5
cell on March 9, 2014. TAC at 3-36. Plaintiff also raises a supervisory liability claim against the
6
SVSP Warden. Id. at 36-39. These claims do not seem to arise out of the same transaction or
7
occurrence, and do not have common questions of law or fact. Finally, the TAC, like the previous
8
complaints, is still overly lengthy and sets forth his claims in a wordy narrative, in egregious
9
violation of Rule 8’s requirement of a “short and plain statement” for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
10
21
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
In sum, Plaintiff’s TAC fails to comply with the Court’s instructions to file only those
12
claims against Defendants that are properly joined. Rule 20 prohibits the kind of grab-bag of
13
unrelated claims that Plaintiff’s pleadings persistently assert, and Plaintiff has repeatedly
14
demonstrated that he is unable to choose one set of related claims for this case and to set forth
15
unrelated claims in a separate complaint filed in a separate action. He has also not complied with
16
the Court’s instructions to correct this and the other deficiencies that have been repeatedly
17
identified in his pleadings. In particular, Plaintiff’s lengthy TAC is in violation of Rule 8’s short-
18
and-plain- statement requirement. Therefore, Plaintiff’s TAC cannot proceed and is DISMISSED.
19
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 21. As Plaintiff has on previous occasions filed pleadings that all suffer the
20
same deficiencies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and has failed to correct these
21
deficiencies twice after being given leave to amend, further leave to amend will not be granted.
22
III.
23
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is DISMISSED without
24
prejudice to Plaintiff filing his unrelated claims in separate complaints in new cases.
25
The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated: October 3 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?